Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pugs who wrote (46688)	5/4/1998 12:11:00 PM
From: Larry S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Pugs, I guess I should read to the bottom of the messages when I'm in catch up mod before I start taking action. This is what I just sent to Jill which she can obviously disregard. Solidarity, Pugs, Welcome Back. Jill, I know answering tons of email can get exasperating, but I could not in good conscious sit idly by while one of the most courageous Yays on the RMIL threads gets booted off SI for staunchly supporting his investment. I bought my membership with SI based on the OVIS activity and I'm sure others did also. If you remove/silence the most avid long investors and perhaps long shot investors, don't you run the risk of appearing biased toward the short sellers? I would think you would give those who openly hold positions in a stock the benefit of the doubt, since they, I would think, should have a right to defend their investment. I agree that everyone has a right to express his or her opinion, but there should be a limit to the amount of abuse that a true stock holder should have to put up with from those that would try to tank a stock based on innuendo. Sure if a person has valid information concerning a company, even if negative, they should be allowed to provide the information. I would think that most people (Long and Short Shareholders) would agree with that premise. But if the information is invalid or has been previously considered, and the information provider is simply continually resubmitting this invalid or previously considered information, then a long shareholder should have a right to expose the nature of the individual providing that information. That is all PUGS has done in my opinion. He has tried to set the record straight. He had tried to show the motivations of the people that continually Ney the stock. He has tried to raise the level of truth by showing the history of people neying against his investment. Why is he being condemned for this. Larry S.